No, it shouldn’t. I’m a Yankee fan and always want the AL to win, so it’s worked out well for me. But it’s a really bad way to determine something that’s so important.
Home field advantage is important in the World Series. 4 home games vs. 3, plus games 6 and 7 at home is a real advantage, although probably not as much as other sports.
The position players/batters are out of the game by the 5th inning. In a tight game, most of the players that are left are second-rate all-stars: 1) those who got into the game as substitutes, 2) through injuries, 3) to meet the 1-player team minimum.
The relievers left in the game are still the best in the game. Thus, in the event of a tie going into the last few innings, runs are very hard to come by. This extends the game and managers are left with very few options.
Since managers try to get everyone in the game, by the end of the game some of the position players left aren’t even playing the position for which they were voted in. Last night, Christian Guzman played an outstanding 3rd base and helped the NL get out of at least one jam. Of course, he hadn’t played 3rd base all year. Do we really want out-of-position players determining something so important?
To me, the decision to use this game to determine WS home field advantage was not thought out well.
I am OK with it. I would not be sad to see it go, but I don’t think it hurts. No methods is without flaws.
The alternating system was fine, but there was no reason why it was the best way. It just worked and that is how they did it.
The oft suggested give home field to the team with the best record is flawed as quite often in MLB history one league was significantly better than the other.
I like the All Star game having some meaning. It seems to have brought up the integrity of the game a small bit. However, it will not crush me if it goes.
This year it wasn’t just decided by an exhibition game, it was decided by the scrubs in an exhibition game. It’s ridiculous.
I’d like to see home field advantage won though, rather than alternated. I thought last night a good way of doing it might be to award home field to the team with the best inter-league record. Or, alternately, to the team from the league with the best inter-league record. It again isn’t perfect, and I am still morally opposed to the concept of interleague play (except in the WS), but it would avoid the problem of one league being stronger than the other.
While I agree that it’s nice to see the AS Game again have some meaning, I’m not sure that doing so in a manner that may influence the outcome of the WS is of justifiable benefit.
That’s what I don’t get. Who cares if they try or not? The most fun in that game was the introduction of the players, with all the HOF guys, anyway. And silly stuff, like Zambrano throwing that pitch over M Rameriez’s head.
I think it’s BS that the World Series is influenced, however slightly by the AS game. Is it really a motivating factor for the AS players? Maybe for some…I’m sure my Cubs had it in the back of their minds this year, but most years, when we send one or two guys and they know they aren’t getting anywhere near the WS that fall, are they really going to care?
The home team only has an advantage if the series goes seven games. The two teams split home games in a 4 or 6 game series, and the road team has the advantage in a 5 game series. So home field advantage has its uses, but I wouldn’t call it major advantage. You can tell that by the fact that it has always been decided by what year it is, and no one cared. MLB didn’t make the switch to find a better system of determining home field advantage, they did it to attempt to make the all star game more of event.
The problem is MLB tried to capture the feel of the game from previous eras, which is impossible. I can watch every player in both leagues play, so there is no mystique to the other league. There is no NL players or AL players as players jump from one another all the time. Fantasy sports makes me more attached to individual players, and less into teams/league. I was rooting for the Nl, but I was also rooting for Josh Hamilton, Scott Kazmir, etc.
I agree that it should be a meaningless game. I would prefer the game be managed and played with the thinking of “wouldn’t it be cool if” rather then “we need to win this one”. Larry Walker facing Randy Johnson is my favorite all star game moment ever, and would have probably not occurred if the teams were determined to win
The All-Star game is a silly way of determining home field advantage for the World Series. But I’m okay with that, at least as long as they don’t try to pretend that it isn’t a silly way. It’s not as though there’s some other, vastly superior method that’s crying out to be used.
What difference would that make re: home field advantage? There are still seven games, so one team would necessarily have more home games than the other.
Plus, it’s expensive, wasteful, and exhausting to travel between every game. If it’s Mets vs. Yankees it’s one thing, but if it’s Red Sox vs. Dodgers, do you really think the players will want to endure a five hour flight every other day? It also lengthens the series to have a day off between every game; the playoffs go long enough as it is.
Because too many players were phoning it in, leaving the game after the third innning, etc. There was a palpable air of “who cares” amongst the players, and this was viewed as a way of combating it. Personally I think Bill Simmons’s idea for the NBA allstar game should be used for all sports: Each player on each team puts up $10K, winning team splits the pot equally. Nothing brings out the competitive edge in players quite like having money on the line. I don’t think having the allstar game determine homefield advantage is a bad idea, I just don’t think it is the best.
No it should not. It was a dumb idea when they started it, and it remains a dumb idea. IMHO, home field should be granted to the team with the better regular season record, as it is done in the LCS’s.
Who cares if the All Star Game ends in a tie? State from the beginning that it will be called a tie if the score is even after, oh let’s say, 12 innings.
There isn’t any other way to determine home field advantage that isn’t arbitrary. There’s nothing more or less fair about the current system than assigning it based on whether it’s an odd or even numbered year.
Like the other poster above, there is no way to return the All Star game to the glory days. Even without interleague play, there is far too much movement of players among teams to keep the All Star game at the same interest level.
Make it a 9 inning game and ties are ok. Sure, you’re going to have players phoning it in. Even with World Series home advantage, players on teams that are out of contention have no real reason to care.
Endeing the game in a tie would show a distinct lack of creativity. I’d be more than a bit miffed if I paid $800 to see a tie. There is just no reason to piss off dedicated fans like that. However, they should have some definite plan in place to deal with all possibilies, so that the managers aren’t put into awkward situations like last night. There are a million fun possible tie-breakers that can be used, which would leave the fans satisfied, and not put the players at risk. Have a mini hr derby, skills competition, use a designated independent pitcher. Almost anything is better than a tie.
Minor problem here: this is gambling on sports. Even if it’s legal, with the NBA dealing with the Donaghy scandal it’s a really bad idea.
I’ve always been against the All-Star game determining WS homefield. To me, that actually makes the game more important than it should be. If the game is going to matter, it should be played by the best players - not the ones the fans like the most in a race to stuff the ballot box (oh and one player from every team has to be represented even if the team stinks). I’m fine with it being an exhibition, and that’s really all it’s ever going to be. If it wasn’t, you wouldn’t see the starters getting yanked after four innings and the bullpens being emptied early. I think baseball is contradicting itself by trying to have it both ways.
I have not heard this and I don’t believe it is true of the majority. If anything the players appear to be responding to it by showing up more often and playing harder. (As they use to.)